# Gay marriage opponents, listen up: I've got a secret to tell you **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 6, 2008, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496 "2008-11-06T19:08:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 36
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2008, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/701 "2008-11-25T19:43:32Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Especially when it is 1000% reasonable to believe that a child is best raised by a mother and a father. That is your belief and your welcome to it. However it is 1000% reasonable for gays to believe your a bigot. You keep trying to argue your right in your beliefs and we are wrong for ours. No matter how many gay friends you claim to have or how equal you claim we should be with civil unions we will still believe you to be a bigot. We can accept you believe only straight marriages are good for society. You seem to be unable to accept we believe you to be a bigot. Our beliefs aren’t stripping you of any rights. ---
**Author:** ![Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Helen_s_Eidolon)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2008, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/702 "2008-11-25T20:04:35Z")
I have no idea why, but I’m taking a deep breath and diving back in. [QUOTE=magellan01] Marriage is a foundational institution for society and our country. It has meant, and does mean, the special relationship that a man and woman have entered into for centuries. The one that begat and raised children. It was/is societies recognition of the natural coming together of man and woman. A celebration of what nature pushes and society has deemed a good and stable cradle for the raising of children. [/quote] > [@magellan01](#): > > I dilutes the meaning by having it refer to a relationship other than that which heretofore have understood it to be. The fear is that heterosexual couples (which are the ones that will continue to be the source of our next generations) will begin to cease viewing the institution as a special one that they should aspire to enter into with the person they love. The fewer marriages we have, the fewer children being brought up in ideal situations. > > This line of argument seeks to abolish all tradition. It attempts to ignore the composite wisdom of centuries of generations. So, anything that we’d like to hold on to can consequently by shown to by ridiculous because it comes from the past. You know, the unenlightened past where they believed all that silly stuff and did all those horrible and ignorant things. I think this argument (not just from you) is really meant to shut down the debate about the _actual_ issue. We should be able to look at any issue in isolation and decide if it’s worth holding on to or not—on it’s own merits. We can then decide which specific things we’d like to hold on to and which we’d like to abandoned. But to come to an intelligent decision about whatever the issue it, it needs to be examined in seclusion. Am I correct is surmising that these paragraphs are the essence of your opposition to SSM? And that a convenient way to sum it up is that marriage is an institution that, for the good of society, should stay the same? **ETA** : In other words, that marriage is an institution that HAS remained essentially unchanged for a long period of time and, in this immutable form, is the basis of all stable societies. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2008, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/703 "2008-11-25T20:21:07Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I’m afraid not. First, SSM has not been around very long. Second, whatever happens in those other countries may or may not translate to the U.S. Third, you assume that the harm must be “provable” and must have already occurred. I don’t see why. My argument has never been that harm “has” (past tense) occurred, so your asking me to allow as a criterion a premise I’ve NOT put forth. As far as “provable”, it think it falls to you to convince me, not the other way around. You’re the one who wants to make the change. Actually, in the last election, you’re the one who voted to change the marriage laws. So, really, the onus was on you to justify your fears of catastrophe if we legalize gay marriage. So far, all you’ve been able to come up with is that straights will feel less special if gay can marry, and won’t get married themselves. You haven’t explained _why_ this would happen, or provided any evidence that anyone on the planet actually feels this way. You’ve just pulled it, wholesale, out of your ass and used it as an excuse to deny people their civil rights. > [@](#): > > SSM has not been part of our society, or those that led to ours. Even if it did exist in isolated instances in the past, it didn’t last. It failed to be embraced and become part of the culture. That doesn’t speak well of its merits. A hundred years ago, you could have said exactly the same thing about women’s sufferage. Two hundred years ago, you could have said the same thing about democratic government. Thank God, voices like your own proved to be in the minority back then, else where would we be today? > [@](#): > > So if you want me to accept this new idea (or one that has failed in the past), convince me why I should want to put our own culture at risk? Okay, the idea that homosexual marriage represents a risk to our culture? That’s inherently homophobic. So when you ask people why they keep calling you a homophobe for opposing gay marriage, you can look at that sentence and have your answer. > [@](#): > > Especially when it is 1000% reasonable to believe that a child is best raised by a mother and a father. Except that every reputable scientific study on the effects of same-sex parenting on children has shown absolutely no discernable difference in the child’s development as compared to straight couples. Other than that, it’s a totally reasonable belief. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2008, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/704 "2008-11-25T21:05:58Z")
I can agree that a child is best off when raised by two (or more) people, simply because the more people loving, educating, and supporting a child the better. I cannot and will not agree that the gender of those people has to be different. I also think the burden of proof is on magellan01 to back up his belief that gay marriage presents a risk to our culture or a disadvantage in raising children. I would contend that oppressing gay people and denying/stripping them of rights presents a risk to our culture, and indeed to what American means. I certainly hope that at this point magellan01 can understand why we think he is a bigoted homophobe. If he continues to pretend that we have this impression of him due to our preconceptions, or our failures to comprehend his nuanced stance, I will have to assume he’s being disingenuous from here on out. ---
**Author:** ![LilShieste](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9f8e36/32.png) [@LilShieste](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LilShieste)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2008, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/705 "2008-11-25T21:51:43Z")
> [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](#): > > Oh yay! I was just about to challenge **magellan01** myself since no one was trying to set forth those points. Yours are the points I’d try to challenge, but I don’t know how effective I’d be, so I’m glad you came back to reiterate them. > > Here’s how I’d answer your objections: (these are my own answers; I’m not speaking for **magellan01** who probably has his own ideas) Thanks, I appreciate the response. > [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](#): > > In speaking of the ideal, marriage could just be defined as a man, a woman and children (if any)–basically the basis of a nuclear family now. > In that way, the definition wouldn’t include two adults of the same gender. > As to rights, the meaning would be more consistent with benefits. So any benefit that derives from traditional marriage such as financial incentives or contractual rights could be conferred on gay couples. > Under that definition, 2 and 3 are consistent. Why should marriage between a man and a woman be considered the “ideal”, though? If it’s described as such, then it’s implied that marriage between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, are “not ideal”. Marriages that are “not ideal” are, by definition, inferior to marriages that are “ideal”. How can this view be held by someone who thinks gay people should have equal rights? > [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](#): > > I’m not sure that one needs to endanger the foundation of society to find it undesirable. Agreed, but we shouldn’t be stripping rights away from people just for things we find “undesirable”. I find saurkraut undesirable, but I’m not going to try to outlaw it. Why should my desires trump everyone else’s? > [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](#): > > How would polygamy endanger the foundation of society? It wouldn’t. My only problem with it, in theory, is that it would be a real PITA to deal with from a legal standpoint. I may have moral objections to it, but those objections should only keep _me_ from engaging in such a marriage - not others. > [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](#): > > It may look ridiculous now; it probably didn’t then. I’m sure there are people who thought it looked ridiculous back then, as well. (Otherwise, where else could the catalyst for change have come from?) > [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](#): > > How do we determine which traditions are positive and unifying and which ones are divisive? That part should be pretty straightforward, actually. The positive and unifying ones are ones that… well… unify (bring people together); and the divisive ones are ones that fragment our society (force people apart). ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2008, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/706 "2008-11-25T22:03:04Z")
> [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](#): > > But whaaaaa??? > > Dude, this completely cracked me up. 😃 Your imagination must be very vivid. It’s like you went to another planet, thought this up and then came back to write this down. Actually, that is an observed problem with communities that are heavily polygamous, such as the Mormon splinter cults that still practice polygamy. The elders in the society use their position to accumulate so many wives that there’s literally no one left for younger men to marry. Left with no prospects for marriage, and thus, for social advancement, these men are more likely to question the fairness of their society, or otherwise cause trouble for the establishment. This generally leads to the community elders inventing reasons to expel unmarried young men from the community. Having been raised in almost total isolation from mainstream society, these men have no idea how to function in it, and usually come to a bad end. Of course, these are small, closed community, where polygamy is not simply tolerated, but actively encouraged. It’s unlikely that, if it were legalized, polygamy would ever unseat monogamy as the standard familial model in the United States. It’s even more unlikely that it would be taken to the destructive extreme seen in these extremist, isolationist religious societies. ---
**Author:** ![LilShieste](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9f8e36/32.png) [@LilShieste](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LilShieste)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2008, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/707 "2008-11-25T22:19:35Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I reconcile that by saying that gays and straights should be afforded the same benefits under the law. In that regard they should be equal in every way. A marriage, between a man and a woman, is entitled to X. A “civil union”, between two people of the same sex, is entitled to the exact same X. But how is this any different from the following argument: _Whites and blacks should be afforded the same benefits under the law. In that regard they should be equal in every way. A marriage, between a white person and a white person, is entitled to X. A “civil union”, between a black person and a black person, is entitled to the exact same X._ It’s the same separate-but-equal argument from the civil rights era. > [@magellan01](#): > > I dilutes the meaning by having it refer to a relationship other than that which heretofore have understood it to be. Guess who’s coming to dinner? > [@magellan01](#): > > The fear is that heterosexual couples (which are the ones that will continue to be the source of our next generations) will begin to cease viewing the institution as a special one that they should aspire to enter into with the person they love. Why would they stop viewing marriage as a special institution? > [@magellan01](#): > > This line of argument seeks to abolish all tradition. Absolutely not. It solely seeks to abolish _unnecessary_ and _hurtful_ tradition. > [@magellan01](#): > > It attempts to ignore the composite wisdom of centuries of generations. So, anything that we’d like to hold on to can consequently by shown to by ridiculous because it comes from the past. My name isn’t Dorothy, and I’m not going to Oz, so Strawman can go home. No one is saying that all traditions are bad. What we are saying is: some traditions are good, and some traditions are bad. This falls into the latter category. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2008, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/708 "2008-11-26T02:13:22Z")
> [@LilShieste](#): > > But how is this any different from the following argument: > > _Whites and blacks should be afforded the same benefits under the law. In that regard they should be equal in every way. A marriage, between a white person and a white person, is entitled to X. A “civil union”, between a black person and a black person, is entitled to the exact same X._ > > It’s the same separate-but-equal argument from the civil rights era. No, it’s not. But because this keeps popping up, I’m glad you asked the question. “Separate but equal” in the context you mention, is almost impossible to achieve. The reason is that you are dealing with two separate items—two schools in a particular town, say—and are trying to make them equal. Even if you replaced them with two identical buildings, you’d need to also make them equal in regards to: - location, are they both in equally safe neighborhoods, equally far from the unpleasantness of the town dump and other potentially harmful places or businesses - financing, which even if you give them the same amount, one might have the benefit of a wealthier community to “pick up the slack”, thus changing the experience - teachers, given that these schools will likely already exist before you endeavor to make them equal, you will have to reallocate them so each school has the same proportion of good teachers and not so good teachers - parental involvement, this is one of the strongest indicators of how a school will do, so you will have to apportion involved parents to each school. But if the involved parents are not equally dispersed between the two schools geographically, then some may not want to have their kids sent to the less convenient school, and pull them out and send them to private school - diversity, neighborhoods tend to not models of diversity. Some lack it almost completely. You need to decide how important diversity—racial, performance, income—is to an equal experience and then send some kids to a less convenient school. And those kids who may have to commute an half-an-hour or an hour then don’t have the same “equal” school day as the kids who are a few minutes from their school So, “separate but equal” as far as a solution to racial disparity in society is near an impossibility. Especially on a large scale. so, it was rightly abandoned as an option. Now, let’s look at my idea. With my idea we have only one set of rules, laws, and benefits. We work to pass a law, as I’ve stated a few times now, that ALL the benefits and privileges that one group gets by their being married is extended—each and every one of them—to the group that is joined in a civil union. So while we have two differetn groups, we have them both accessing the same benefit pool in regards to rights and privileges. That pool is equal to itself, so the problems associated with separate but equal in the civil rights struggle do not apply here. Here both groups, gays and straights tap into the same laws. With your example, the two groups, blacks and whites, we’re tapping into two separate and distinct school systems > [@LilShieste](#): > > Guess who’s coming to dinner? This is your same argument that suffers from the fallacy of association. Just because a perception from yesterday was shown to be unnecessary and unhelpful does not mean that all perceptions and beliefs from that time suffer those same failings. I really thought I explained this pretty well. > [@LilShieste](#): > > Why would they stop viewing marriage as a special institution? Because it no longer IS as special. Right or wrong, you’re seeking to expand the definition. And by definition, that makes it less special. It makes what it is defining less distinct. I really don’t see how one can argus otherwise—unless you believe that the sexes of the individuals play and have played NO ROLE in our understanding of marriage. You want to look at the love component and only the love component. I acknowledge the love component, but see that there is another component, as well. > [@LilShieste](#): > > Absolutely not. It solely seeks to abolish _unnecessary_ and _hurtful_ tradition. No. You are wrong. Your argument works equally well and equally poorly for all tradition. But now you want to separate one type of tradition from another. That’s good. But you’re soon left evaluating those things on their merits and ignoring the accident of them all being “traditions”. And THAT is my point. That is a good thing. > [@LilShieste](#): > > My name isn’t Dorothy, and I’m not going to Oz, so Strawman can go home. Huh? Strawman? How in the world is what I wrote a strawman fallacy? Do you know what a strawman is? > [@LilShieste](#): > > No one is saying that all traditions are bad. What we are saying is: some traditions are good, and some traditions are bad. This falls into the latter category. Very good. So the fact that they both are traditions can be ignored. You have to look at the merits of each, whether they be rooted in tradition or not. You’re argument sought to dispense with one because we dispensed with the other. Gotta run. Try to be back later. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2008, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/709 "2008-11-26T02:58:45Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > (snip)… There is no good excuse for outlawing SSM, **including** the alleged will of God. If you claim that God is a bigot, that doesn’t justify being a bigot as well. [hijack] Why not? If God exists (existed) and he is a bigot, and he promises eternal rewards for being a bigot, why shouldn’t I be bigot? Why should I care for the temporal satisfaction of others in exchange for eternal damnation? So, in return for letting Anne and Suzie get married I get everlasting torture by a dozen 15-headed demi-liches? Sorry, girls. I am NOT saying that God exists or not, it is a he or a she, that Christianity/the Christian God/ The Bible is/is not bigoted. That’s for another debate. It’s just a philosophical question, why should I care more for them than for me? [/hijack] ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2008, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/710 "2008-11-26T03:44:53Z")
What’s so ridiculous about this “separate but equal” bullshit is that, if it actually happened, it would be an illusion. If you’re trying to protect the sanctity of marriage, calling gay marriages “civil unions” ain’t gonna do it. People are still going to say, “Adam and Steve got married last weekend,” not “Adam and Steve got civilly unioned.” The children are still going to see the gays being all married-like, and will probably not make the fine distinction that NO, boys and girls, they are NOT married! They are civilly _unioned_! Your hetero marriages are SAFE from the taint of gayness and deviant sexuality! So, all the contorting magellan01 is advocating on behalf of protecting hetero marriage from the dilution and less-than-idealness of being associated with gays-- it wouldn’t work. It would be a technicality that no one would realize or feel, except the gay people who would have to get a different license, and worry that on the next ballot, their rights would be taken away again. So what’s the point? Really? You wouldn’t be protecting jack shit with this nonsense. You’d just be forcing gays to jump through hoops of bullshit and keeping them separate so that they’d always be at risk. All this nonsense to cater to people’s irrational fear and bigotry. Ridiculous. ---
**Author:** ![Heffalump\_and\_Roo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/heffalump_and_roo/32/7691_2.png) [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Heffalump_and_Roo)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2008, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/711 "2008-11-26T05:00:52Z")
Great questions. Thanks! > [@LilShieste](#): > > Why should marriage between a man and a woman be considered the “ideal”, though? If it’s described as such, then it’s implied that marriage between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, are “not ideal”. Marriages that are “not ideal” are, by definition, inferior to marriages that are “ideal”. How can this view be held by someone who thinks gay people should have equal rights? But it says quite a bit more than that, doesn’t it? The ideal discriminates against single people, socially inept people, children, mentally incapable people and pretty much everyone else that doesn’t fit the one man/one woman standard. And I’ll go a step farther and say that the ideal is to have a loving family with enough resources to provide for the nuclear family unit. So that discriminates against a whole bunch more people. . .the poor, the hateful, etc. Why does it do that? Because it’s an ideal. It’s something to move toward but not attain. It’s like the ideal physical body. Really, no one has one. . .it’s just a standard that give us an idea of what people consider the goal. That doesn’t mean that people that don’t hit the standard are inferior. . . almost all people don’t match the ideal. We don’t consider that single people should get a marriage certificate because they feel discriminated against and want one. Until they’re with a person of the opposite sex, they don’t qualify. But that’s not because they’re inferior; they just don’t qualify. And btw, single people don’t get the financial benefits of marriage either, whereas in California, gay couples can file for domestic partnership and obtain most of them. > [@LilShieste](#): > > Agreed, but we shouldn’t be stripping rights away from people just for things we find “undesirable”. I find saurkraut undesirable, but I’m not going to try to outlaw it. Why should my desires trump everyone else’s? Are you referring to the 4 months of time in California where gay couples could marry? Is that the rights that are being stripped away? > [@LilShieste](#): > > It wouldn’t. My only problem with it, in theory, is that it would be a real PITA to deal with from a legal standpoint. I may have moral objections to it, but those objections should only keep _me_ from engaging in such a marriage - not others. (about polygamy) If it was found that it would be a real PITA from a legal standpoint to have gay marriages, would that be reason enough to not have them? > [@LilShieste](#): > > I’m sure there are people who thought it looked ridiculous back then, as well. (Otherwise, where else could the catalyst for change have come from?) This was about women’s voting rights, I think. Yes, I’m sure it did look ridiculous to an increasing number of people right before the law was passed. But go back a bit further and it might have seemed less ridiculous. > [@LilShieste](#): > > That part should be pretty straightforward, actually. The positive and unifying ones are ones that… well… unify (bring people together); and the divisive ones are ones that fragment our society (force people apart). Well, people are quite unified at the moment in this country that they’re not interested in SSM. In most states across the country, they’re pretty unified in that. Does that mean that the states that have allowed it should give it up so that they can unify with the opinion of the rest of the country? It would make things less fragmentary. ---
**Author:** ![Heffalump\_and\_Roo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/heffalump_and_roo/32/7691_2.png) [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Heffalump_and_Roo)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2008, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/712 "2008-11-26T05:13:45Z")
> [@Rubystreak](#): > > If you’re trying to protect the sanctity of marriage, calling gay marriages “civil unions” ain’t gonna do it. People are still going to say, “Adam and Steve got married last weekend,” not “Adam and Steve got civilly unioned.” The children are still going to see the gays being all married-like, and will probably not make the fine distinction that NO, boys and girls, they are NOT married! They are civilly _unioned_! Your hetero marriages are SAFE from the taint of gayness and deviant sexuality! Then why don’t they do it now? In California, they can file a certificate of domestic partnership, have a ceremony (or not) and tell everyone they’re married. Why don’t they do this? If all it is, is: > [@Rubystreak](#): > > a technicality that no one would realize or feel, except the gay people who would have to get a different license, and worry that on the next ballot, their rights would be taken away again. So what’s the point? Really! Indeed. That’s my question, what’s the point? Really. While I realize that **Miller** is not the poster boy for gay people, here’s his answer: > [@My First Pit- Magellian01.. you are a cancer upon the human condition](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-first-pit-magellian01-you-are-a-cancer-upon-the-human-condition/455014/35): > > The thing is, as an atheist, I _do_ give a shit about marriage, and would like to get married someday. Not civil unioned - married. Yeah, it’s just a word, but it’s a word that means a lot to me. I’m kind of sentimental like that. If he can get domestic partnership-ed and then tell everyone he’s married and no one would realize or feel the difference including him, why doesn’t that happen now? ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2008, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/713 "2008-11-26T05:16:57Z")
> [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](#): > > If he can get domestic partnership-ed and then tell everyone he’s married and no one would realize or feel the difference including him, why doesn’t that happen now? Read carefully: I didn’t say it would be exactly the same for the people involved. It would in fact be very different for them, as Miller said. ---
**Author:** ![Heffalump\_and\_Roo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/heffalump_and_roo/32/7691_2.png) [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Heffalump_and_Roo)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2008, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/714 "2008-11-26T05:26:59Z")
> [@Rubystreak](#): > > Read carefully: I didn’t say it would be exactly the same for the people involved. It would in fact be very different for them, as Miller said. Do you mean this? > [@Rubystreak](#): > > keeping them separate so that they’d always be at risk. First, that’s not anything that **Miller** is talking about. Then, **magellan01** has stipulated numerous times that the benefits could be tied to each other, so the only way that they’d be at risk would be if they weren’t able to secure this right. If there’s another way that they would be different, please point it out more explicitly. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2008, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/715 "2008-11-26T05:32:28Z")
Also, at the risk of stating the obvious, H&R, you do realize that domestic partnerships/civil unions are not the same as marriage? They are not recognized in other states, do not allow you to file as married on your federal income tax, state tax, do not afford community property rights, etc. Also, unlike the word “marriage,” domestic partnerships vary from state to state and have no one comprehensive list of rights that they afford. But you knew this, right? As long as there’s a functional difference between the unions allowed to gays and straights, it’s going to be a problem of inequity. But, if everyone has the same rights, and you’re just calling it a different name, then you’re not protecting what you claim to be protecting because no one will make the distinction but you, and possibly the people who will try to take your rights away. So really, it’s a mug’s game, as jayjay said, to stand in the way of this. Not that I expect it will stop you trying. Why magellan01 thinks that people are going to go for his plan, contorted as it is, when they will not go that extra milimeter and just use the word married, I don’t know. People who don’t want gays to be married generally don’t want them to have any spousal rights and recognitions. This is why I think the issue will be decided in the judicial branch and not via voting on propositions. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2008, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/716 "2008-11-26T05:54:38Z")
> [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](#): > > Do you mean this? > > First, that’s not anything that **Miller** is talking about. Then, **magellan01** has stipulated numerous times that the benefits could be tied to each other, so the only way that they’d be at risk would be if they weren’t able to secure this right. > If there’s another way that they would be different, please point it out more explicitly. Because California is not an independent nation, it is a state of the Union. There is a corpus of law dealing with marriage, both in terms of Federal benefits/privileges/rights and in what other states are required to extend by way of FF&C. (And yes, I am aware of DOMA and of the present policy of the Federal government in not recognizing legal gay marriages. I am also aware that President-Elect Obama is pledged to rescind such measures, to the extent he is able.) A domestic partnership in California is/is not equal to a civil union in New Jersey is/is not equal to a marriage in Connecticut. Which is the right answer? Your guess is as good as mine – there is no precedent. After the reforms, may a civil union or domestic partnership couple file as “married filing jointly”? Do we have to invent new categories for couples in pseudomarital relationships filing jointly? Are they entitled to family leave on the same terms as a member of a married couple? May a citizen contract a civil union or domestic partnership with an alien and then obtain a green card and have preference in naturalization as is true for citizen-alien marriages? These are or will be real issues affecting real people. We have a concrete example of the last-named on this board: two relatives of **The Flying Dutchman** in a gay marriage, now living in Canada thanks to Immigration having issues with recognizing their marriage. Beyond which, parallel institutions should be referred to by the same terms, IMO. An Arizona marriage is legally equal and identical to a North Carolina marriage, howsoever the state laws may differ. If a 16-year-old may drive in Montana with a full operator’s license (and I’m picking a state at random), that license is valid in, say Rhode Island (again randomly chosen) if he is passing through or on vacation with his family there and running an errand for them, even if Rhode Island does not license 16 year olds with full operators licenses. If the two members of a domestic partnership adopt a child, is that child their son or daugher? Are they his/her fathers or mothers? Are you going to designate them as “quasifamilial parental units” or something? It’s not a semantic game or pursuit of someone’s ideal of marriage we’re speaking of here, but real injustices committed against real people. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2008, 7:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/717 "2008-11-26T07:18:41Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > [hijack] > Why not? > If God exists (existed) and he is a bigot, and he promises eternal rewards for being a bigot, why shouldn’t I be bigot? Because it would be wrong. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Why should I care for the temporal satisfaction of others in exchange for eternal damnation? And you trust a torturer ? What makes you think a god like that doesn’t toss everyone into Hell for the fun of it ? What makes you think he won’t send you to Hell for following him out of calculation and not belief ? What makes you think he doesn’t send the unbelievers to Heaven and the believers to Hell just because the betrayal makes it that much more fun ? In other words, why trust a monster ? And it’s STILL wrong to do what such a monster demands. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > I am NOT saying that God exists or not, it is a he or a she, that Christianity/the Christian God/ The Bible is/is not bigoted. That’s for another debate. > It’s just a philosophical question, why should I care more for them than for me? > [/hijack] All you are doing is demonstrating the fundamentally evil nature of Christianity. You should care because it’s the right thing to do; Christianity is carefully designed to make sure you DON’T do the right thing. ---
**Author:** ![Heffalump\_and\_Roo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/heffalump_and_roo/32/7691_2.png) [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Heffalump_and_Roo)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2008, 7:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/718 "2008-11-26T07:53:57Z")
I don’t have the slightest idea of how your thoughts are in any way linked to mine or answering something that I’ve written, but I’ll answer your questions. > [@Rubystreak](#): > > Also, at the risk of stating the obvious, H&R, you do realize that domestic partnerships/civil unions are not the same as marriage? Yes and no. I don’t know what knowledge you’re imputing to me, but here’s what **Miller** wrote earlier in the thread and I read it and I didn’t doubt him. > [@Miller](#): > > No, they aren’t the same. None of the federal benefits of marriage apply to civil unions. Even on the state level, in California, there are nine different benefits that apply only to marriages, and not civil unions. These nine issues were why the California supreme court originally ruled that banning gay marriage was unconstitutional. I subsequently asked whether these 9 benefits could be successfully litigated to become identical and he said, probably yes. > [@Rubystreak](#): > > As long as there’s a functional difference between the unions allowed to gays and straights, it’s going to be a problem of inequity. Right, and in every debate, **magellan01** has said that he is arguing that there should be more attention paid to reducing or eliminating these functional inequities. I agree. > [@Rubystreak](#): > > Why magellan01 thinks that people are going to go for his plan, contorted as it is, when they will not go that extra milimeter and just use the word married, I don’t know. People who don’t want gays to be married generally don’t want them to have any spousal rights and recognitions. This is why I think the issue will be decided in the judicial branch and not via voting on propositions. I can’t speak for him, but the reason I think that they might vote more easily to give equal rights to gay couples under domestic partnership than to change the definition of marriage is because of how closely domestic partnership rights are to rights of marriage in California. > [@Polycarp](#): > > Because California is not an independent nation, it is a state of the Union. There is a corpus of law dealing with marriage, both in terms of Federal benefits/privileges/rights and in what other states are required to extend by way of FF&C. (And yes, I am aware of DOMA and of the present policy of the Federal government in not recognizing legal gay marriages. I am also aware that President-Elect Obama is pledged to rescind such measures, to the extent he is able.) I also don’t have any idea how this is tied to anything I’ve written. I do however, note that we’ve moved from a very theoretical discussion of the concept of marriage to one of execution and implementation of the legal benefits. So now we’re not discussing the tradition and the institution of marriage and we’re now discussing the tactical considerations in gay couples obtaining the same benefits as married people. But let me try to understand what you’re saying. Are you saying that if California had same sex marriages, then if DOMA was rescinded, then gay couples who got married in California would have their marriages recognized in states that don’t recognize gay marriage? How about if we had a Federal law recognizing civil unions as applying equally across the states? Wouldn’t that be better? More states now recognize civil unions than recognize gay marriages. > [@Polycarp](#): > > A domestic partnership in California is/is not equal to a civil union in New Jersey is/is not equal to a marriage in Connecticut. Which is the right answer? Your guess is as good as mine – there is no precedent. After the reforms, may a civil union or domestic partnership couple file as “married filing jointly”? Do we have to invent new categories for couples in pseudomarital relationships filing jointly? Are they entitled to family leave on the same terms as a member of a married couple? May a citizen contract a civil union or domestic partnership with an alien and then obtain a green card and have preference in naturalization as is true for citizen-alien marriages? These are or will be real issues affecting real people. We have a concrete example of the last-named on this board: two relatives of **The Flying Dutchman** in a gay marriage, now living in Canada thanks to Immigration having issues with recognizing their marriage. While I don’t know the answers to these questions, wouldn’t they be like any other questions of law? I’m not understanding your point here. > [@Polycarp](#): > > Beyond which, parallel institutions should be referred to by the same terms, IMO. Then you’re suggesting that all civil unions be called civil unions across the country? I’d agree. > [@Polycarp](#): > > An Arizona marriage is legally equal and identical to a North Carolina marriage, howsoever the state laws may differ. How can they be legally equal and identical if the state laws differ? If one state had community property laws and the other did not, wouldn’t the rights of the people in respect to their property in those marriages differ when they moved? > [@Polycarp](#): > > If a 16-year-old may drive in Montana with a full operator’s license (and I’m picking a state at random), that license is valid in, say Rhode Island (again randomly chosen) if he is passing through or on vacation with his family there and running an errand for them, even if Rhode Island does not license 16 year olds with full operators licenses. I don’t know if that’s true, but if it is, is that because there’s a federal law overriding the state one or state reciprocity laws? Is this true in every state? > [@Polycarp](#): > > If the two members of a domestic partnership adopt a child, is that child their son or daugher? Are they his/her fathers or mothers? Are you going to designate them as “quasifamilial parental units” or something? I don’t know, but surely two people in a domestic partnership have adopted a child before. I suspect they become legal guardians of the child and they can then call the child whatever they’d like to call it. I’m guessing they have the legal rights of legal guardians. You’re asking some very technical legal questions about things that happen between states in certain situations. I don’t know the answer to them, so I can’t even assess your point or if you even have one. > [@Polycarp](#): > > It’s not a semantic game or pursuit of someone’s ideal of marriage we’re speaking of here, but real injustices committed against real people. If these injustices occur, they can be corrected through the legal system in the same way that other injustices are corrected. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2008, 7:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/719 "2008-11-26T07:55:21Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Because it no longer IS as special. Right or wrong, you’re seeking to expand the definition. And by definition, that makes it less special. It makes what it is defining less distinct. I really don’t see how one can argus otherwise—unless you believe that the sexes of the individuals play and have played NO ROLE in our understanding of marriage. You want to look at the love component and only the love component. I acknowledge the love component, but see that there is another component, as well. There’s a combination of the fallacies of excluded middle and argument by assertion at work here, I think, along with a dash of special pleading. It can just as easily be asserted that being more inclusive makes marriage more special, as anything more of the Human Family can share in is made more special -say, arbitrarily, the more countries enact Arbor Day, the more special that day becomes because of everyone who shares it. In other words, rather than equating “special” with “exclusive”, I’m equating “special” with “admirable”. And the excluded middle comes in when you say SSM means the sexes of the individuals play “NO ROLE” in our understanding. It may play a small role, but that role is entirely subservient to the love component. It will always be there - if Cow-orker Bob comes in and simply says “I’m getting married next month”, and we don’t know that Bob is gay, it will still be our natural first assumption that he’s marrying a Bobette. That’s always going to be the case, unless we have reasons to think different. ---
**Author:** ![descamisado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e480ec/32.png) [@descamisado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/descamisado)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2008, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/720 "2008-11-26T15:52:19Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > There’s a combination of the fallacies of excluded middle and argument by assertion at work here, I think, along with a dash of special pleading. > > . . . . In other words, rather than equating “special” with “exclusive”, I’m equating “special” with “admirable”. Not disagreeing with the excellent point you’ve made (especially the 1st para. above), but I think in this thread “special” is being equated to “exclusionary.” How, in the absence of _any_ concrete proof to the contrary that SSM will make marriage less special and rend the very fabric of society as we know it, that is not discriminatory has not been explained in these 15 pages. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496.md?page=35) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496.md?page=37)